Taboo-XX wrote...
A Paragon does not enslave beings either. You dismiss your logic in the first paragraph in the third. Are you willing to enslave that consciousness, one that is said to be long dead? It is absurd to believe that Shepard will simply take
Control to fly the Reapers into the sun.
Synthesis is above and beyond an overstepping of bounds. You have zero right to enact that change on ALL beings.
I am left with one option, one I detest, but the alternative is extinction for ALL life, not just the Geth and EDI. They do not take precedence over everyone else. It doesn't matter if they are Synthetic or not, all life is equal, as Bioware has so bludgeoned me over the head with. To ensure the safety of all life, some must be taken. That's a monstrous thing to say but I have no choice.
He presents multiple fallacies, whether Bioware intended this doesn't matter because that's what it is. This is an interpretation, no different from yours. I see an appeal to authority and an appeal to probability, as do many others on this forum.
Paragons do enslave and even condone sterilizing beings, apparently. Rewriting the Geth Heretics is presented as a Paragon choice, better than destroying them, and Shepard appears okay with the first genophage and even willing to think twice about the second. He says the genophage update "borders" on a war crime meaning even he isn't certain it was a bad idea.
If the only choice is whatever control does, you falsely present it as necessarily slavery when it could be a simple mental prohibition against fighting and storing organics, and Reaper genocide, of course control is the less morally problematic. Let's not be silly. In fact, even actual slavery is less problematic than genocide. Actual slavery, e.g. imprisonment, allows for the possibility of change, redemption. If you're dead, that's it.
And control is still not the only choice. You keep carping about synthesis, but while they don't specify, you have in game evidence that synthesis entails immortality, in the testimony of Javik on immortality being a defining characteristic of synthetics, as well as the Catalyst referring to it as the "final" step in evolution implying no further evolution will even possibly occur, a possible consequence of immortality.
Would I make everyone immortal to avoid genocide or the war resuming? Obviously. Maybe they didn't intend that stark a presumption for green; I'll know sometime tomorrow.
What I do know is that you have no true right to any of the choices.
No one can grant you authority over, in destroy, all synthetics or, in control, all Reapers, as pawns of the Catalyst but apparently self-willed, AND to risk the future safety of the galaxy or, in synthesis, the self-determination of the volitonal galaxy.
The whole point is this is an emergency situation and you must make a really tough choice. I find genocide morally unacceptable, unless the alternatives are as bad or worse. I don't find forcing evolution to be as bad as forcing extinction; I don't even find risking destruction and continuing mental domination to be as bad as genocide.
If you do, well then a more detailed discussion than is reasonable here would be warranted.
The point is they don't give you even a fraction of the information necessary to make an informed decision in this kind of unique case, so disagreements will flower for eternity or unless the EC is incredibly astute.
Retour en haut
